User talk:Chris Brennan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Reply

Hi ,

Sorry , I am not a professional astrologer . But I have been interested in every thing occult/esoteric , so I have read a lot about astrology ( mainly vedic & western , & a little bit of chinese & native american). If UR interested in predictive astrology , IMO vedic is the best way to go . I had downloaded some books from this site once. [1] . It has almost all the classical texts on which Vedic astrology is based . Most important ones are BPHS ( brihat parashara horashastra ) & Kalyana Varma's Sāravalī . They also explain different concepts like varga ( divisional charts ) , Nakshatra ( Lunar mansions ) , Dasha ( Planetery periods ) , Yogas ( Planetery combinations ) that arnt available in western astrology .

A question from my side , have U ever heard of vedic non-luminous planets , what do modern astrologers think of them  ?

Thanx for your time . Hopefully we will keep in touch . Peace . Farhansher 20:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Astrology

Thanks for your comments on my changes to Astrology posted on my user talk page.

The sentence in question starts, "The majority of Western astrologers base their work on the tropical zodiac, which correlates with the seasons…" . This is a true statement and I have no problem with it.

The phrase I objected to is "….and uses the same reference point (First Point of Aries) as modern astronomy." . I objected because it is misleading to the reader. In one swoop it tries to hide the fact that western astrology has divorced itself from the actual positions of stars in the sky and at the same time give it the respectability of astronomy. I believe this is a weak position and that it is Sidereal astrology which bears the closest relationship to astronomy. The Wikipedia article should not try to further the argument between sidereal and western astrologers but to explain the two systems in as jargon free way as possible.

Also astronomers do not define the vernal point as the first degree of Aries. They use it as the zero point in a 360 degree reference system. The constellation of Aries is now between 1h 40m and 3h 30m Right ascension from this point, that is about 25 to 45 degrees. This discrepency between actual constellation and tropical zodiac gets bigger every year that passes and yet tropical astrologers continue to tell the public that their work relates to the stars. If as you say tropical astrology relates to the seasons then why are the signs not revered in the southern hemisphere. Many Australean neopagans observe the vernal equinox in September , logically tropical astrology should do the same for those born south of the equator. Lumos3 22:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] On ASTROLOGY PAGE

Chris, I'd like you to "define" lack of NPOV regarding the Astrology page. You are still a student I see. Are you a professional, experienced astrologer? I am a judicial astrologer, am in my early 40s and have practiced and taught professionally for 24 years. See my Talk Page for more.Theo 01:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that you are interested in integrating Vedic, western and classical astrology into one system.Theo 05:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: a difficult person

If I can give some un-asked-for advice, don't respond to him in kind. If he keeps on as he has, he's going to end up involved in dispute resolution. Try to ignore his personnal attacks. He's digging himself a hole; there's no need to join him in it. Best case, as he gets more experience here he'll mend his ways. Best regards, Tom Harrison (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Suggest a More Positive Attitude from you

Dear Chris, I would suggest a more positive attitude from you. You last note continues to sound accusatory, and this is not helpful when engaging in discussion. I would appreciate it very much if you would stop referring to anyone's edits as "messing around" which is surely not what I am doing. I suggest we discuss with respect, and class, and not immaturity. Also suggest you refer to transit squares and oppositions to natal Pluto, Saturn, and your lunar nodes. Perhaps a re-check of these and coming transits by natal & progressed positions may shed some light and help you neutralize them;Theo 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Theo- I have attempted to engage in rational discussions with you already several times, but these have all failed and you usually resort to condescending remarks and thinly veiled personal attacks whenever you are proven wrong, as you appear to do in all of your interactions with others on Wikipedia. Here are a few of the highlights of the things that you have said to me so far:
  • "Suggest you gain more years of practical astrological practice under your belt before writing on the subject seriously."
  • "This statement by you indicates a serious lack of knowledge of the subject. Suggest you study extensively because of the copious materials out there. Try taking a visit to Europe where you can spend time actually reading some of the original materials on astrology - because then you will have more knowledge to add to your studies."
  • "At your age, how can you even be qualified to state that there is a "misreading of Ptolemy?" You are not an astrologer yet - but a student of astrology."
  • "Really? Then you truly have much more to learn."
  • "I suggest you do that rather first before making changes on this subject. You are too young yet to make such absolute statements - particularly on astrology."
  • "I suggest you re-read Ptolemy and stop wasting my valuable time with your long statements based on your lack of knowledge."
  • "You express a lack of serious astrological knowledge and should know better."
  • "But, if I catch you reading one chart as as "professional" Chris, when you clearly are not yet a professional astorloger - I will report you. This is a SERIOUS science and clients come to a professional with serious issues and you are not yet qualified - considering your statements here that show your lack of astrological knowledge - to be able to practice professionally. Put your time FIRST. Studying astrology is NOT the same as practicing in the real world. Understand? You are still a student. Don't go out there pretending to be a professional astrologer when you are not one yet."
  • "And, just who do you think you are to make such conclusionary statements on Astrology? You are a STUDENT Chris, and NOT a professional, experienced astrologer, or a teacher. You have a long way to go depending on the honesty and hard work you are willing to put into the subject."
  • "Suggest you do more reading and study."

And you have balls to try and tell me that you "suggest a more positive attitude" from me and that my "last note continues to sound accusatory, and this is not helpful when engaging in discussion."??? Yeah right! If you continue to try and post spurious information in the astrology articles and pass it off as a minor edit, even when I have clearly proven with several sources that your assertions are faulty in the talk page of the article, then I will continue to revert them just like everyone else is doing. --Chris Brennan 04:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I meant my words. You are too young to practice astrology professionally. Wait until after your first Saturn Return. Keep studying, yes, but gain more worldly experience. You may take exception to what I said earlier, but I mean it. There are too many inexperienced "astrologers" out there who use that term so loosely that it damages the profession. I practice it. And so do other professionals. You are still a student; yet say on your Talk Page that you are an astrologer. At 21?

Re/ words: I agree to treat you with kid gloves, you will agree to back off from the language and the wild assumptions you make about me. Which, by the way, are in error. Again, in your language in the last message: "you have the balls to ..." is aggressive. Also, you appear to be using all manner of guises to apparently hide some lack of astrological knowledge & experience. I suggest if you are to make these weak threats concering "sourcing" that you do your homework and check them first before writing such childish statements. I am a grown man, a professional, with a family and consider your tone, language, and statements disrespectful: especially from a 21-year-old who has much more experience and knowledge to gain. You still have not responded to the source information. Your tone remains hostile, and you appear to show no respect; though you say you are an "astrologer." At the age of 21 I'd like to see you prove this with knowledge, citing quality sources and getting back on point rather than the use of accusatory language, false statements (back them up if true) and urging of revert wars. Again, suggest you check your own transits, as your Saturn/Pluto/Lunar Nodes are aspected now, and will continue to be in the near future.Theo 04:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources? Oh, right. You mean like that time just yesterday when you mistakenly thought that you were quoting Ptolemy, but instead you were quoting a 10th century Arab astrologer. And then when I pointed it out and cited three reputable sources you ignored it and tried to post the article again anyways? --Chris Brennan 05:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Chris, let me ask you this: how is it possible for Claudius Ptolemy to rise from the grave; transport himself to the 10th century, and "steal" aphorisms that had his own name on them in the first place? Just how is this possible?Theo 05:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Theo, I think that I was very clear about this in my post when I said that

The Centiloquy is attributed to Ptolemy. That doesn't mean that he actually was the author. In fact, modern scholars agree that he was not the author of that work. In the ancient world it wasn't looked down upon to attribute some other famous author's name to your own work, but rather, sometimes that was how you drew attention to and gave prestige to what would otherwise be an obscure work. The highly respected historian of sciences and head of the department of the history of mathematics at Brown University, David Pingree, writes in his work From Astral Omens To Astrology, From Babylon To Bikaner that "Ahmad ibn Yusuf's Kitab al-thamara or Καρπός, known in its Latin version as the Centiloquium, and attributed falsely, already by Ahmad, to Ptolemy..." Another historian, James Holden, agrees and writes in his book A History of Horoscopic Astrology that "A collection of 100 astrological aphorisms called Karpos 'fruit' in Greek and Centiloquium 'Hundred Sayings' in Latin was attributed to Claudius Ptolemy in the Middle Ages. It is certainly not his..." Even in my edition of the Centiloquium, which was published recently by contemporary traditional astrologers at RenaissanceAstrology.com, the pubisher Christopher Warnock writes in the preface: "The first complete Latin translation from Arabic was done in 1136 and as many as 10 different versions existing in manuscript form. It was traditionally accepted as the work of Ptolemy, though modern scholarship has established that the probable author was the 10th century Arabic astrologer Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Yusuf."

In other words, Ptolemy didn't write the Centiloquy. It was written by an Arab astrologer named Abu Jafar Ahmad ibn Yusuf in the 10th century, and he attributed it to Ptolemy so that people would read it and so that his work would gain notoriety. This was common practice, and there are many other examples of other authors doing this with astrological works in the Middle Ages. This isn't some personal opinion of mine or something. This is something that is agreed by text editors and historians that have examined the texts and the original manuscripts, and I quoted those people directly. --Chris Brennan 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, as far as internal textual evidence goes, there are certain things which clearly show that this could not be the work of Ptolemy. For example, several of the aphorisms make explicit references to Horary astrology, which is not something that Ptolemy addressed at all in the Tetrabiblos. One of the reasons for this, among others, is that interrogational astrology (ie. horary) was not developed until the 2nd and 3rd centuries and this development occurred in India within the Hindu tradition. (See Pingree, 1996, pg. 21) Horary was not a part of the mainstream tradition of Hellenistic astrology from which Ptolemy and his contemporaries were drawing on, and it did not become integrated into the western tradition of horoscopic astrology until the Middle Ages when the various Arab and Persian astrologers undertook a synthesis of the Indian, Persian and Hellenistic traditions. So you see, even the internal evidence in the text itself with the references to horary show that this could not have been the work of Claudius Ptolemy. --Chris Brennan 06:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

See my response on the Astrology Page to this. It is often repeated, but not with proof. The Centiloquy is the "fruit of his four books" - the Tetrabiblos. However, I would not go as far to say that horary was not practiced until the Second & Third Centuries. There are practices that go back before the time of Christ.Theo 06:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stay collected

Anybody who takes the time to read your conversations (you know which ones) can easily discern who does their research, who backs up assertions with research, and who is in the right. Now, just stay calm, and you should come out on top. Don't give him the satisfaction of seeing your anger expressed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] A Request

Dear Chris, I would like to request that when I make an addition, or an edit on the astrology page, or any other page that you do not immediately make an "accusation" that I am trying to do "something" negative. I am a Wikipedian, a professional astrologer, and a writer and resent your edit summaries that associate my fixing of a typo, or addition as a accusation. I suggest professional, and respectful comments from you, rather than the personal attacks on edit summaries. This runs counter to good Wikipedia behavior. Please refrain from posting attack lines on me or anyone personally. If you have a question for me regarding any article addition, then I suggest you ask me first before posting accusations as if you are correct in assuming that I have some kind of malefic intent. I have no such intent. If you ask me, I will kindly answer. If you have issues, then ask as well and I will do my best to provide you with an answer as to why I wrote anything. If you have ideas on improvement; I am open to thoughts and ideas as well. But, making accusations, and writing rude comments on Edit Summaries does not lead to improvement anywhere. I have the same right you do to write, and edit as a Wikipedian, and request you respect that without resorting to personal attacks on Talk Pages or Edit Summaries. You do not know me Chris, and assume many things which are in error concerning any intent of mine. I welcome positive discussion and working together - but not when attacks are made. Please refrain from doing so. Thanks.Theo 04:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, intially I was on your side and I attempted to work with you and be civil with you concerning all of the massive edits that you were attempting to push through on the various astrology articles by repeatidly reposting them until you got banned several times. You responded with numerous personal attacks and flat out refused to compromise even the slightest bit with any of the articles that you keep trying to post, even though it has been shown by both astrologers and skeptics alike that your articles have major flaws and are far too biased for an encyclopedia. But still you refuse to change them and you just keep trying to post the same exact article that you have been trying to push through for over a month now. I'm also really just tired of your dishonesty. I can't believe that you could write a sentence just now saying that you resent my edit summaries and then turn around and completely rewrite the Astrology article and mark it as a minor edit and write in the edit summary "(corrected typo)". That is called lying Theo. Look it up. I don't work well with liars. If you really want to work with me then I'm totally be up for it and we could really improve the whole astrology section of wikipedia. All you gotta do is stop with the bullshit man. --Chris Brennan 04:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I mean. Rather than asking, Chris, you accuse. So, I suggest that you either find a way to repair this, or refrain from addressing me at all. I don't resent your edits: in fact, I think you have a lot to offer. Moreover, nothing of the like has been shown. I added to the astrology article. I am an experienced, professional astrologer. I have more to offer and will do so. I don't care for your assumptions, accusations, and unprofessional manner and snobbishness. Moreover, Chris, I don't like being called a "liar" or "dishonest" or being "biased" - and then have you write this on Talk Pages, and on edit summaries. I kindly asked you once to please stop, and I am now asking you again. I also don't like you using profane words with me (bullsh__) and leaving me rude messages. If you stop with the false accusations, and assumptions, then ok, if not, I will report you. I've already saved and printed this page as one example of your personal attacks and rude comments and bad language. I suggest you find a better, honest, and professional manner appropriate to a student of astrology and leave your resentments, anger, and bad manners, and profanity at home. It has no place in the Wikipedia community.Theo 06:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead Theo, report me. C'mon, I dare you. You have pissed off dozens of good, honest people here on wikipedia already with your behavior and I would like to see what the officials would say when you attempt to bring spurious reports against me. So please, by all means. --Chris Brennan 06:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Chris – he has come that one before, on the Nostradamus talk page. It's all part of his characteristic bluster. --PL 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources on the Wiki-Astrology Article

Dear Chris, if you are to revert my edits on the Astrology article stated "POV-pushing" suggest you remember that the article is sourced. Your version is not. I ask you to use the TalkPage before reverting and get off taking things personally. Thanks.Theo 04:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

All of the "sources" that you cited are out of date, not to mention the fact that none of them back up your assertions. Also, everyone on the astrology talk page has agreed that your version is not accurate and it should not be allowed to replace the previous article. In light of that, I think that you should be using the talk page before you try and revert the entire article back to the essay that you wrote a month ago. --Chris Brennan 04:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris, suggest you follow Wikipedia standards, and source materials. Your version has no sources, and this is critical since it avoids claims of POV-pushing that you constantly make. I suggest you please halt with personal issues and get back to work here. I would love to work with you. Please cite sources and halt your instant reverts. That would help greatly. Thanks.Theo 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources aren't just random books that you pulled out of your library Theo. They are supposed to support the arguments that you are trying to make. Unfortunately none of the "sources" that you cited do that, so basically you just have a few random book references added to your essay with no quotations. In your essay you are still trying to attribute sayings to Ptolemy that he did not say. I have already proven this, yet you sill keep trying to post it anyways. What about that, huh? --Chris Brennan 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you not make asumptions Chris. Cite sources for the astrology article. This avoids POV-pushing, and helps the reader as well - leading to astrological books of note referenced in the Wikipedia page. My writing is not an "essay" but adds encyclopedic information. I would like to improve the article, and my relationship with you as a fellow Wikipedian. I would also suggest that on your Talk Page that you not refer to yourself as an "astrologer" since your studies are only five years ongoing since the age of 16 years old. I am a professional astrologer, and writer in his mid-40s - more than twice your age. I have the knowledge and experience to add to the encyclopedic topic of astrology. You are not equal in knowledge, nor experience to me, or any other astrologer with over 25 years experience. I suggest you remember this, and apply yourself accordingly. This would be best, and would work for you if you are honest about you having only five years of study. Thanks.Theo 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he said that sort of thing to me, too. I am 69. So presumably he thinks I know a lot more about Nostradamus than he does? ;) --PL 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Feeling a little insecure Theodore? Of course you are. Thats why you resort statements like this when you know your wrong. Its very unbecoming of an astrologer with as much wisdom and years of experience as you. Thats too bad... --Chris Brennan 05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Why exactly are you doing all of this Theo? I don't understand it. What is the point? All of these arguments with people here? What do you get out of it? --Chris Brennan 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The point of citing sources is, again, that it avoids POV-pushing, as you claim. Feeling insecure? You make assumptions again. Not at all. Arguements with people? Most people on Wikipedia have these arguements, and it is not new. I agree with as many people as I disagree with and the same is true with others. I don't get anything out of it. I am experienced, and as a journalist, and astrologer have long experience dealing with people who agree, and disagree with one another. Nothing is new in that. I do not expect others to agree 100-percent with me, nor do I assume that I will agree completely with them either. That's life. Lastly Chris, one of the reasons why I am not open fully to you here is because you state you are an astrologer. You know full well that you are not an astrologer - yet you continue claim that you are. If you return to being a student, and assume that role, as I had to do when I was your age, then you will leave behind the many assumptions you make - and you do presume much too much. I suggest you re-phrase it as a "student of astrology". Do you think Chris, that at age 21, that you are equal in knowledge to a professional astrologer with more years of experience than you've been alive? So, you can perhaps put yourself in my shoes regarding this before making assumptions about me. I have taught, and teach students of astrology, and am not kind to ones that presume - it is very bad for astrological practice, and worse for the profession. We have enough "pseudo-astrologers" around who damage astrology with weak arguements and presumptions. I do not take a weak stance on this, as you suggest. Why? Because I am experienced. If you had enough astrological practice & experience, you'd know that professional astrologers are tough as nails. They need to be. One more thing Chris. I actually know quite a bit about Hellenistic astrology, and culture, and would love to share discussions on this with you because, despite what you may assume, I think you are a serious student of astrology. Don't confuse my writing, edits, etc., with a bad attitude. You would be wrong. There are many POV battles in Wikipedia going on. Look for yourself. I would prefer not to be involved with them, but you cannot control what another person presumes, or "sees" according to ignotance of transits, or their POV. However, remember, that respect to an elder astrologer is paramount to success. I had to give respect to my elder astrologers, and did so Chris. I learned much more because of this. There is a lesson to be learned, and when you reach your 30s and 40s Chris, believe me, you will expect it too from astrology students. Also, please do not take what I say to you personally, because, it is not meant that way. However, to reach out to you, I will apologize here to you if you feel that I have attacked you, because it was not intended. I am this way with all students of astrology. Some, who first resented my strict approach, now consider me a good friend, and teacher, and return to me with kind words for helping them to become qualified judicial astrologers. So, nothing I write to you is personal, because it is not. I think you are gathering a lot of good knowledge, but you have a long way to go Chris, before becoming a professional astrologer. I knew of Kepler before it started up. If you stick with your studies, and avoid stating you are an astrologer before your time (Saturn Return) then you will go on to success, and avoid the pitfalls that will come you way if you proceed prematurely. So, let's get a fresh start, and see if we can get this right, and move on, ok?Theo 06:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Strange, don't you think, that in all these years as 'a journalist', Theo has not yet learned to state his point briefly and succinctly, but continues to insist on bludgeoning us with 'novel' after 'novel', apparently labouring under the misapprehension that the more he writes the more convincing it will be? ;) --PL 16:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

:A cartoon I saw shows a speaker at a lectern referring to his notes: Where argument is weak, shout! Just cruising – :)) Julia Rossi (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry didn't realise it's out of date. Need coffee.

[edit] NPOV work

Just thought I'd drop by and say that - as a skeptic - I'm impressed by your efforts to keep the Astrology etc articles on the level. Very heartening, particularly in light of many other recent edits. Adrian.baker 08:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate it. --Chris Brennan 16:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Well the point of Wikipedia edits is to "be bold" and the Astrology page is a part of this Wikipedia philosophy for editors. As an experienced, veteran professional astrologer, I intend to do just exactly that - be bold.Theo 03:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Chris! I agree with Adrian.baker - you do some good edits. Like your style, very organised. And like Theo I'm an old man now (quite a bit older in fact), with a long history in astrology. So when I say I recognise talent and erudition in one so young, please take it as a compliment from a voice of experience. My regards, MayoPaul5 20:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

OK, Chris, I have added my comment to your impressive complaint! Hope it helps! Best --PL 10:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Chris, I reworded a few things (hope you don't mind), and added my info and signed the RfC. Take care. Jim62sch 11:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris, I've added my own 2 cents to the complaint, although I wasn't strictly `invited' as such. I hope it helps out. My concerns with Theo were over his edits to Science, although he never broke the 3RR on that one. Should I add those examples to the complaint? --huwr 12:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, you might as well add those examples to the complaint. I'm aware that there are a lot of examples that I didn't add in initially, but I was hoping that people would make additions based upon their interactions and issues with Theo. --Chris Brennan 15:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris; I've signed as endorsing the summary. Tom Harrison Talk 14:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris - I just re-did my comment at the bottom for you, as it seems to have got lost! Somebody actually seems to have removed it! Best --PL 16:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that BorgQueen moved it to the talk page. I think that she thought that it was a discussion perhaps? --Chris Brennan 17:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you ought to revisit the Wikipedia Page on Inquisition to better help you in your campaign against Theo.Theo 14:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning

The article on the book Star Names: Their Lore and Meaning has been created (not by me). Perhaps you might want to have a look at. Regards, BorgQueen 20:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. --Chris Brennan 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment added on discussion page. --PL 10:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks man. --Chris Brennan 06:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Blocked?

Hi Chris

Would you know whether Theo has officially been blocked yet? Clearly, it affects whether or not the Nostradamus article has to stay protected any longer or not. --PL 10:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, User:Theodore7 is not being blocked at the moment. --BorgQueen 13:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaaarghh!! I see he's back – and up to his old tricks again (though no actual complete reversions yet)... --PL 10:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He did, however, change Science, undoing 3 weeks of other people's work. He changed it back to what he made it, a revision that was reverted. --huwr 10:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration for Theo

In case you hadn't seen it: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Theodore7 —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting

Sorry, I didn't want my full revert to be too hasty. I watch the page and leap in when the mood strikes. Marskell 13:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Understood. No Problem. This whole thing with Theo is something that has been going on for two months now and I really want it to end. --Chris Brennan 13:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. It's just started again on Nostradamus too. Exactly the same old vandalism. Exactly the same old rubbish. Unless something permanent is done soon things are liable to turn pretty nasty... you know, the worm turning, and that sort of thing... Time for action IMO! In fact, more than time... --PL 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology page heading image

What do you think of the solar system image as the leading image...or my other suggestions? Do you have any suggestions for neutralizing the leading image? bcatt 09:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, take a look at astromancy and tell me what you think. I'm a self-taught amatuer, and as I understand it (and interpret it), astromancy and astrology are two different, yet somewhat connected, practices. bcatt 09:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revising the Astrology article

Chris:

Concerning the causal (I *think* you mean "causal"--you wrote "casual") basis of astrology is that Ptolemy may very well have believed it. Lilly too, I would think. But that is the only conclusion they could draw from the cosmology they had! As Pingree says, on the same page of "Astral Omens" that you cite: "genethlialogical astrology [...] assumes an Aristotelian universe in which the earth at the center, consisting of the four sublunar elements, is surrounded by the eternally circling spheres of the seven planets in the so-called Hellenistic order (Moon, Mercury, venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter Saturn)." Think of Dante. That's what they saw and believed. Personally, I no longer have this view of the sky, do you? What they (by "they" I mean a collective "they" that stretches back several millennia into Mesopotamia) actually *observed*, we think, was a relationship between the omens of the sky and happenings on earth. This is the basis of our modern astrology, but their cosmology cannot stand today as it was. We no longer believe in an unchanging heaven above the sublunary sphere.

Well, Pingree makes the mistake, in my opinion, of assuming that Ptolemy's adaptation of the Aristotelian natural philosophy to physics was THE underlying model of astrology for every astrologer before and after Ptolemy's time. While it is true that most of the astrologers after Ptolemy did believe in a causal model of astrology, that doesn't necessarily mean that the construct was causal to begin with. This was the whole point of TMoA. I was asking you about Lilly because I want to make a distinction in the validity of astrology section between those astrologers who held that the mechanism behind astrology was causal, vs. those who believed in an acausal basis, aside from their religious beliefs. Both Bonatti and Lilly can be Christians and still think that the planets are causing change in the sublunary sphere. I'm not so much interested in their religious beliefs, but more so in contrasting the difference between those who believe in an causal astrology, and those who believe in something else. No, of course I don't believe in the Aristotelian model of the universe.--Chris Brennan 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What I think about what you've done so far is: great improvement! Excellent writing and intelligence shines through everywhere. Gone at last are all those bits and pieces that everyone felt the need to horn in with, and instead there is a coherent, meticulously described narration. It must have been very hard to do. I applaud you.

However, I do not agree with your conclusions about the history of astrology. This is a major disagreement between us, I'm afraid. You say in your "Description" section: "Horoscopic astrology is a very specific and complex system of astrology that was developed in the Mediterranean region and specifically Hellenistic Egypt sometime around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE," an opinion you give Pingree as a source for. What Pingree actually says is: "..sometime in the late 2nd or the early 1st century B.C. someone, perhaps in Egypt, invented genethlialogical astrology..." But nowhere does he say that this was Egyptian astrology. Clearly it was Greek, and the "background," as he says earlier in "Astral Omens," was without any doubt Mesopotamian. I mention this because later on, in the "History" section, you say: "around the late 2nd or early 1st century BCE after the Alexandrian conquests, this Babylonian astrology was mixed with the Egyptian tradition of Decanic astrology to create Horoscopic astrology. This new form of astrology, which appears to have originated in Alexandrian Egypt, quickly spread across the ancient world into Europe, the Middle East and India." I don't know that you can make a case for any native Egyptian astrology. That Dorotheus refers to "Egyptian astrologers" in "Carmen Astrologicum" and there is a frequent referring back to Nechepso/Petosiris, is not enough to assume this. We have nothing in writing for them and in any case, we have no idea who they were. The history of the thing actually might Persian origins more than Egyptian. I'm not sure what you mean by "Decanic astrology." They invented decans, for sure--or they used them, in any case. But their calendar and their timekeeping are one thing; is this astrology?

I'm not exactly sure what you are arguing against here. I said explicitly that the development occurred in Hellenistic Egypt. I could add "by Greek speaking peoples", but even at that, it wouldn't even necessarily mean that these were ethnic Greeks who invented it. Greek was the lingua franca of the intellectual world at this time, just as English has become today due to the internet. If some guy in China were to invent a new form of astrology today, and he created the system using English for all of the technical terminology, it would still seem slightly absurd to call it English astrology. If such were the case, then we should call Medieval astrology Arabic astrology, and Indian astrology Sanskrit astrology.--Chris Brennan 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
As far as the Egyptian contribution goes- We got the ecliptic reference system of the zodiac from the Babylonians as well as much of their planetary astronomy up to that point. The Egyptians had a set of 36 extra-zodiacal asterisms called Decans which they used for timing purposes, specifically in relation to the diurnal rotation and attributed specific topics to certain decans when they would rise, culminate, set and anti-culminate. Combine this with Hipparchus' calculations for the ascensional times of Alexandria, which apparently Hermes/Thoth did, and you've got houses. Hellenistic, just like every other tradition of astrology in history, arose from a synthesis of several traditions into a new construct. Now, I didn't say that this was "Egyptian astrology", only that it came together in Egypt and that there was an Egyptian contribution. I'm not really sure what the issue is with this. --Chris Brennan 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(Also, Pingree does say "someone" invented genethlialogical astrology. But this could be a some *ones.* But this is not anything that you said.)

Alexandrian Egypt was a Greek place, culturally. Alexandria was a Greek colony. Pingree does say: "Some elements in addition to the central idea of preducting the life of a native from celestial phenomena came to the Greeks from Mesopotamia." So even if this big development happened in Egypt--which he himself says is only one hypothesis--it isn't at all clear that native Egyptian culture had a great deal to do with it.

The fact that the Decans and their iconography play a part in the Hellenistic delineations is alone enough to warrant a mention of the Egyptian contribution. Even if we for some reason ignored the repeated attributions of the art to the Egyptians, in addition to the Babylonians, by every Hellenistic astrologer, we would still have to contend with the little bits of Egyptian astrological lore which is embedded in the system. One example of this is how Cancer is rising in the Thema Mundi due to the Egyptian tradition of the Nile flooding with the heliacal rising of Sirius at the summer solstice. Along with this comes the use of the Sothic/Egyptian year in both Valens and Hephaistio and chapters entitled "Concerning the Indications of the Arising of the Dog Star and the Stars Accompanying It" (Rhetorius 1, 23) that could only come about due to an Egyptian influence. I realize that their contribution was not huge, and that there hasn't really even been a lot of work done in this area, but to say that there was no influence whatsoever doesn't seem to line up with what I've been reading. --Chris Brennan 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is Mesopotamian in origin--as sky omens. When you add the Greek cosomology and mathematics, you got the complexities of the astrology we know, which is not omen astrology, since, as Pingree also says, the omen systems posits that the gods come forward to communicate a message to you, which is not at all the same thing.

Well, Pingrees distinction between Babylonian "astral omens" and Hellenistic "astrology" should be looked at with a certain degree of skepticism, especially by someone like you who is in Corneilius's camp, since Pingree's benchmark for the Hellenistic mechanism is Ptolemy. --Chris Brennan 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

But what else is being combined is very, very unclear. The influence you are identifying is very likely Persian, since the Persians ruled Egypt before the Greeks, and clearly had a very well-developed cosmology of their own. There's no indication that the Egyptians were doing "astrology" or even omens during those millennia the Mesopotamians were doing their tablets. I don't consider myself a scholar on this material, but I just don't know of an Egyptian decanic astrology. Is there someone who writes about this that I'm not familiar with?

Francesca Rochberg has some discussion of it in her book The Heavenly Writing, but materials on the Egyptian decans are very scarce. There are plenty of references with in the Hellenistic texts themselves though. Herphaistio has some extensive delineations, and there is an interesting section in the Yavanajataka where you can see how the Indians adapted the iconography of the Decans to their own culture. Pingree wrote a paper on this at some point that I've been meaning to track down. --Chris Brennan 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor stuff:

1. I think I would not bother with all the -ology stuff in the first sentence, since "astro" in the pertinent word there. But I don't think you wrote that. 2. In "The Validity" section possibly I'd restore the idea that Gauquelin's sectors worked for sure only on *notable* exemplars of the vocations he analyzed, because I think it was Hand who said that. Not sure. Maybe Gauquelin himself. 3. In paragraph 2, I'd change "supposed correlation" to "proposed." Sounds more professional. 4. Paragraph two of the "Description" section: I'd change "Many of those who practice astrology" to just read "Astrologers." Why not? 5. Same section, 3rd paragraph: "serve to locate the apparent location of heavenly bodies" is an echo. Perhaps change "location" to "position"? NaySay 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


Oh! I forgot to say: I mean that there is a "religious" element to this astrology in the sense that this is clearly a connection to a Divinity and there is a sacred feel to it. I don't mean established religion, of course, or even a mystery cult. That was not my intent. But for Lilly and other "magicians," going back to Ficino and Harran, there was definitely a religious component to the whole thing, as there was to the Classical astrologers. I suppose today we'd say "spiritual," but, honestly, what is the difference? That's not science, not superstition and not even casual "fortune-telling." Anyway, make of that what you will. that's what Cornelius means. NaySay 21:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Chris: Oh I'm so sorry I didn't write sooner! I immediately went and read your changes. But I was thinking about it. And then I got overwhelmed with work. Joseph Crane came to lunch yesterday and while he was here I showed him the astrology article and we read over the Pingree monograph again, and I asked him what he thought. He also had doubts about the Egyptian astrology part, but then, so many of my opinions were formed by him, it's not surprising we would see eye to eye on that. Still, he thought your writing was all a perfectly reasonable point of view. I just feel bad that you thought I was upset or something. Of course you have always been extremely polite, and it's been a pleasure to deal with you. I just didn't realize that you had been answering what I wrote here on your page. I just read it all over now. I'm not familiar with the Rochberg material. But as you say, all of this is very obscure. We know virtually nothing about the period or what happened. We can only surmise, from the stuff we do have, that there was a tradition, that it clearly was strongest and most pure in Egypt (at that time) and that Ptolemy came along and applied it all directly to Greek science and cosmology (much as, as Joseph pointed out, Rudhyar applied Freud and Jung to astrological principles) which resulted in something of a divergence between the Dorothean and Ptolemaic traditions. We don't know who Nechepso/Osiris was or whose work they emulated. If you want to leave in the bit about Egyptian decanic astrology, that's your call, and fine with me. You are doing the work, and it's your opinion, which appears to be no more provable than mine, and it's all perfectly reasonable. Great job. -Nadine NaySay 23:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] amendments in astrology page

Dear Chris,

I find that you are deleting my amendments in astrology page which relate to Vedic astrology. It has happened twice. You do not give reson to delete the amendments. On both ocassions I wanted to add the branches of astrology available in Vedic / Hindu astrology . But you did not like the same, & deleted. Pl do tell me whether you have been given some authority by Wikipedia, or have some fixed / rigid opinions about Vedic astrology & do not want to add about Vedic astrology in the main heading " Astrology". --- Shridhar

Next as you have also observed that article on " Combustion" is poorly written, & wanted to upload what I have commented, I have done the needful, with some minor additions.


Thsnks, --- Shridharvk

[edit] Vandalism

The user has been indefinitely blocked as vandal account. --BorgQueen 03:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What do you wish of me?

I'm happy to help a fellow editor if they wish of course, but I'm not completely certain what you wish from me. If you could put it more clearly I'd appreciate it. On a sidenote, I'm very happy to hear a calm voice from the astrology "side". At times the sheer level of hostility on the page has gotten to me like the vandalism of my user page and the personal attacks, and as a result I have made some decisions I probably wouldn't have made under a clear mind. Anyway, let me know what you'd like me to do and I'll be happy to help. Jefffire 20:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Sorry for the delayed response. My intention was just to try to salvage the scientific parts of the article for use in other areas of Wikipedia where they might be needed. It just seemed like a lot of work had gone into writing the parts of the article that were critical of astrology and that it would be a shame to get rid of them. Unfortunately it looks like the article is gone now and I didn't save a copy of it, so it is kind of a mute point.
Aside from that I would like to apologize for the behavior of some of the astrological partisans here on Wikipedia lately. Although these guys are kind of tame compared to some of the real crazies that Wikipedia has attracted over the past year (see Theodore7's RfC and User:Andrew Homer), I still think that what they have been doing on some of these pages is totally counter productive. Hopefully in the future we can find a way to work together on certain issues and broker a decent compromise between the parties. If you ever need me to talk to my 'side', then just let me know and I will do my best. --Chris Brennan 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris, since you have never met me, nor know me, I find it very difficult to see just how you can add my name to your list of "real crazies" as you so eloquently put it in your above comment. Moreover, it appears that the Astrology Page has worsened over the past several months, with the continuing un-Wiki-like lack of tolerance, and personal comments made on people one does not know. For your information, I am a professional astrologer, an experienced journalist, and a teacher, with 33 years of astrological experience and knowledge base young man, and have never been considered a "crazy" before your above statement made to a person who also does not know me. I suggest, Chris, that rather than continue to make personal attacks and flame people you do not know, that you maintain a sense of dignity, respect, and good astrological practice in representing the astrological community in the future. It would also suffice that you refrain from calling people "crazies" who may not share your particular point of view. Wikipedia mostly attracts seekers and sharers of knowledge, and expanding knowledge through diverse means is not akin to being crazy.Theo

[edit] WikiProject templates

Regarding my note on the Talk:Astrology page, there is now a proposal about banner templates at WP:AUWPTPT. At least one admin seems to support it, but on the other hand, it is being proposed by SPUI, and while I don't want to make personal attacks, you should look at his user page... --Philosophus T 01:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This is bad. Thanks for letting me know about this. What do you propose that we should do to counter this? Oh yeah, and I had been meaning to talk to you about having some sort of interplay between the astrology and the psuedoscience projects, or at least some sort of dialogue between them. We can get to that later though once this issue has been dealt with. Thanks again. --Chris Brennan 04:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology and policy

Regarding recent posts on our Astrology article, I have some long-winded thoughts :)...

You suggested: "On wikipedia the consensus position overrules the NPOV policy..." No, actually: nothing short of an edict from Jimbo overrules NPOV. The WP:NPOV article states (as do the two other content policies, WP:V and WP:NOR): "these three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus" [my emphasis]. Of course, there is a never-ending debate about this (watch them for a month or two, to see). In sum, consensus does not overrule this triumvirate.

Now then, I'm obviously giving ammunition to the people who don't want Astrology to be categorized as a pseudoscience ("Hey, that's not NPOV! even if your version of consensus says so!"). But this is where it's difficult: the content policy pages also state that they should not be interpreted in isolation from each other. So, does Astrology categorized as pseudoscience (or with a pseudoscience project header on the talk page) violate policy with reference to V and NOR? Verifiable label, yes. Not original research, yes. (Not as the final categorization mind you, which we're not in the business of providing--we don't categorize Islam or Christianity under Category:Truth).

But we're left with NPOV, that necessary but terrible policy. The label pseudoscience violates it because the label offends? That just isn't good enough. It isn't good enough relative to the NPOV policy itself, common sense, or to the other two content policies (how could we categorize any topic with a "political" angle otherwise?). NPOV is a (needed) pain in the ass but Aquirata and others are deploying it wrongly: if I claim this insults me (or I decide it will insult that amorphous group of people called "astrologers" that I claim to not belong to but still speak for) NPOV is violated. No. This is an unenforceable and unscalable standard.

Well, this is long and I don't want to demand a particular response--it's just where I'm coming from and all that. I'm tired of being told to read on policy by people who have a year less experience on this Wiki than I do (not that you are saying that, to be clear!). Wide open to debating policy if its main points are clear off the top. Cheers, Marskell 00:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. My comment about consensus overriding NPOV was simply an observation that I noticed about the social dynamic on Wikipedia while working here over the past year, and I wasn't referring to any specific policy that may be in place. Thank you for the reference though.
However, now that I look at it, it would appear that those policies that you cited about consensus not overriding NPOV are contradicted somewhat by other policies that are directed specifically at psuedoscience. See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Pseudoscience. There is a sentence that is specifically emphasized in this policy that says
"the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"
This essentially lends credence to the statement that consensus has a tendency to override NPOV in areas that are deemed to be psudeoscience. Astrology in particular is in a strange position as a subject because it is very hard to categorize and those who "believe" in astrology tend to use it for different purposes, hold different beliefs about it and categorize it in different ways. It’s not quite a science, and it’s not quite a religion, and it’s not quite a technology. It’s just in this sort of gray area which sort of falls between the cracks of several different Wikipedia policies.
The objection to the label of psuedoscience raised by Aquirata doesn't arise simply because the term itself is offensive, but that is only a sort of side effect of the value judgment that is tied into the term psudeoscience which is essentially saying that most things in that category are "false" or “wrong”. If things labeled as psuedoscience are false then it is explicitly implied that those who practice or believe in them are either delusional or charlatans. If there is no validity to astrology, but you have a substantial number of people who hold a belief that there is something to it and this is contrary to the contemporary scientific opinion, then you do start to enter into the realm of astrology as a religious belief. As it stands right now on the astronomy page this is exactly how astrology is characterized:
"Modern astronomy is not to be confused with astrology, the belief system that states that people's destiny and human affairs in general are correlated to the apparent positions of celestial objects" (emphasis added)
If we do start talking about astrology as a 'belief system', then it follows that you would have to be somewhat careful about explicitly affirming or denying its validity since these become theological issues which are not within the scope of an encyclopedia. Applying what are construed as derogatory labels to a person’s ‘belief system’ is considered to be offensive, and this is where we start running into issues. Of course Aquirata and Piper are of a relatively small majority of astrologers who believe that astrology is a causal science which studies the literal affect of the planets upon the lives of men, so they would probably never consider it a belief system. But you on the other hand deny its validity as literal phenomena, and thus you would have to acknowledge it simply as a belief system, which would consequently lead you to be somewhat more mindful of the religious sensibilities of astrologers and to making blanket statements about its “truth” if you are trying to adhere to the general NPOV policy and the religion clause therein.
I’m just rambling at this point though, and I’m not necessarily going anywhere with this, or even representing my own position on the subject, but I just thought that I would put some of this stuff forward for whatever its worth. Its good to have some sort of dialogue that isn’t all combative and such. I'll talk to you later. --Chris Brennan 01:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Thoughts:
  • Self-contradiction on the NPOV page? Without question. It's enormously imperfect. In practice, you're right that what is called NPOV generally equals a given consensus (or what the five odd people editing a given page happen to agree on). I just wanted to point out that the "ideal" is not so.
  • Astrology as belief. I think we're actually on the same page, if from different angles. I have no desire to insult anybody's faith. It's just that Aqu and PA seem to want to have their cake and eat it. Introduce criticism of astrology and "this is no worse than insulting a faith!". But, hey, if they've dug up appealing numbers (however dubious the source) then suddenly astrology has a scientific basis. One simple way to put it: if the page is arguing for astrology as a causal science at any point, then the majority scientific categorization must be there.
  • Don't leave the page. That would be my last point. Marskell 22:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid that we aren't going to get anywhere with the astrology page at this point Marskell. I'm totally done dealing with these two at this point. They even state bogus things about the history of astrology that they can't back up, and then they try to defend it to the death regardless of whether or not they have read the material in question or are shown to be in the wrong with evidence. I don't know what to do at this point. It seems like we can't really do anything. Do you have any ideas? --Chris Brennan 16:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First Chris, it would be really awful if you left the page because of over-zealous contributors (to state it kindly) or trolls (to state it less than kindly). From the "why I am wasting my time here" perspective (which is a thought that can occur to any wikipedian, on any page) I would offer this: it is the astrology page. You should watch this one, argue over it, read the rules because of it, etc. This is the topic that drew you to the Wiki, presumably. And remember that a Wiki page (for better or worse) is likely to be read by more people than any "formal" page on a .edu or (some non-wikipedia) .org site. That's what keeps me here--even if it's only in the tens or hundreds I know a given contribution of mine is far more likely to be read by Joe Smith on this site than another one.
How about you tell me on my talk (or tell it on the astrology talk) what sources you think are current for astrologers (yes, none of them are probably mainstream for science as such, but policy tells us that non-mainstream topics can use non-mainstream sources to describe themselves).
I'll be honest that it has seemed to me that neither Aquirata nor Piper have any idea what is current for astrologers. They just find something, come to the page, and say "let's devote two hundred words to this!" Now, I don't know what is current for astrologers, and I react basically from a skeptical, policy perspective: most of what they suggest is unreliable, and/or original research. So I reject it. And pages like this need that. Partisans cannot dominate pages or Wikipedia won't work (this applies across the board from "pseudoscience" to political topics). It just has to be resisted.
So don't give up. You know more about the topic than anyone at the moment so it's good to have you there. Marskell 23:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check this

This is undabbed, sourced, etc. but I was thinking something like this: User:Marskell/Astrology might work. Marskell 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is perfect. Nice work man. --Chris Brennan 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I hesitate to show Aqu yet as it'll just be more of a shitstorm (what isn't at this point). I'll try and wikify it tomorrow so that it's good to go. Feel free to tweak. The last section with the blah blah blahs is meant to include:
  • Stats on how many people believe it and to what degree.
  • The debate over horoscopes in newspaper pages.
  • General info, like the main religions take on the subject. I had a sentence about Christianity and Islam at one point six months ago but it's been lost. Marskell 18:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it will probably be more of the same circular logic and personal attacks when shown to Aquirta, so there is no hurry there. The suspect that the response will be the same in the end no matter how it comes out.
It seems like the last part that has yet to be added, although important, is going to open up a whole new can of worms that isn't necessarily related to the current problem at hand. Could we just get the straight science section pushed through and get the page unlocked and then deal with the issues surrounding belief and religion? I just worry that trying to address those issues right now would delay the process indefinitely, and I've already lost my patience with these two. --Chris Brennan 23:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Your right the last part will just be more problems. I'll leave it for now. Marskell 07:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's in there. Now it's a matter of defending it. Marskell 07:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Influence"

There is a definite and specific reason for the change: both the Oxford and Merriam Webster's dictionaries use it. That's it. Aquirata was placing a "fact" request at the end of the sentence so I literally used the words used in the dictionaries ("supposed influence(s)"). You can check the links.

Put another way, this was changed because of his pig-headedness rather than some desire of mine. I was fine with the intro as it stood. I do understand that even very subtle changes can affect "one side". I wasn't trying to cause trouble. By using the exact wording from the dict's I think it more defendable; indeed if he reverts it, it would amount to vandalism.

I hope you know where I'm coming from. The current animosity is causing me to be more hardline than I would be normally. Marskell 22:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the two dictionaries:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/astrology
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/astrology?view=uk
Marskell 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help requested

Hi Chris, we need your help on the astrology page. User:RJHall has suggested that we include a brief summary section or table on the beliefs associated with the different bodies in the solar system, particularly their supposed effects. I think with your expertise in the subject, you could contribute to it and improve the article. Thanks Vorpal Bladesnicker-snack 17:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I will try to be as active as possible, and I have been pretty active over the past few months on the talk page trying to get it unlocked, and I created a Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology. I just got kind of burnt out because there were these two astrologers who were making things very difficult and I got kind of disgusted with what they were doing to the page. I will try to get back into it though. Thanks. --Chris Brennan 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From me too

What the hell are we going to do about the "Besides the Mars-athletes claims, astrological researchers claim to have found..." sentence. It's become a total laundry list of everything they can find and they seem determined to make it longer. Marskell 18:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this: "Besides the Mars-athletes claims, astrological researchers claim to have found correlations for physical and behavioural characteristics, societal trends, and large geophysical events." Marskell 18:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it has become quite the list of bogosity. I assumed that they would cool down over the past week or so, but it appears that I was wrong. Sorry that I haven't been as active lately, I'm just kind of busy with work and studying right now. I will try to do some stuff tonight though. I think that your sentence sounds good. It should be kept general like that, especially in the case of claims where there has been no apparent attempt to verify or reproduce them. I will try to pay attention and support you in the even of a revert war, but it seems like it would just lead to lockdown again at this point. I will review the article in a few hours though and make some changes. --Chris Brennan 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for info

Hello Chris,

Thank you for the heads up!!! I had not realized I was walking into a hornet's nest. Glad to hear that you are involved with Kepler College and Project Hindsight, two of the best resources we have now for education in astrology. Keep up the good work and I wish you all the best. I look forward ot meeting up you again at an astrology conference or seminar some time. DavidCochrane 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Astrology, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Marskell 12:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposed new entry in astrology tools

Hi Chris, I want to add an entry to the external links section but thought I should first check with you and Aquirata to see if I am overlooking something that either of you notice. Please see what I put on Aquirata's discussion page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aquirata#proposed_new_entry_in_astrology_tools and let me know if you think adding this link is OK. Thanks! DavidCochrane 10:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I weeded out a bunch of commercial links yesterday, but I don't think that this was one of the ones removed. Wikipedia editors will tend to look at the content of the site sometimes or perhaps just glance at it in order to determine if it seems to be more commercial or more educational in nature. You can try to post the link and I wont stop you or anything, but I have a feeling that others may remove it because it has the appearance of being more commercial than educational even though it is offering a free service. Also, this is probably a particularly bad time to try to add pro astrology content to the astrology page because Aquirata has just succeeded in pissing of nearly every skeptic associated with the page, and now there is a call to arms of sorts on order to clean it up. So, you can try putting the link up, but it might be better to let things cool down for a few days. --Chris Brennan 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion/David Cochrane

I thought I'd let you know that the David Cochrane article has ben listed for deletion. In my view, it is important and in the interests of WP that users knowledgeable about the subject matter make their views known. If you wish to comment, please do so here: [2]. Aquirata 12:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "He is basically just trolling now..."

Yes, he is. Put we need to give this due process. I have a feeling he may actually reject mediation giving that he's arguing Jefffire shouldn't be included (more inane logic: a peace negotation without one of the main belligerents). In this case (and barring the extremely unlikely event everything suddenly settles down), I will go to arbitration. Marskell 15:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theodre7

Hi Chris. Thought I'd sent you this warning earlier: Theodore7 is back! I thought he was supposed to be banned? --PL 16:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh no. Not again. They never really banned him per se, I don't think. They just sort of slapped him on the wrist a few times and told him to get lost. However, I was under the impression that he was banned from editing specific articles in the future, and I thought that the Nostradamus article was one of them. You might want to try to dig up that RFA that took place a while ago concerning him. I will see what I can find. --Chris Brennan 18:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Everything is on this page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Theodore7 It was only a six month ban as long as he didn't violate the terms of the ban by editing or making other personal attacks or false edit summaries during that time. It appears at first glance that he may have violated some of these, which could lead to a renewed ban, but at this point I don't have any interest in pursuing it unless he does get out of hand again. Please keep me updated if you have any problems. --Chris Brennan 18:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the 'six months' bit might explain it! Thanks for the ref. It's just the once so far... so fingers crossed! (Ah no, that's magic!). Best --PL 10:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Yo. Sammy was all stoked about Project Astrology, and he sent me there to go check out your group page, this is pretty amazing. I'm Photochopping the wiki logo to stick a glyph on it. Your pick. Wait till you see this thing. --Meredith Garstin 02:59, 05 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I'll just use this heading rather than create a new one (sorry Meredith). Thought I'd let you know I made a userbox for the WikiProject members. check it out! Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology#Userbox Sam 23:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chart data?

What is the chart data for the inceptional horoscope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astrology? Is it an electional chart? Could you please post that information on the image file's page? Thanks.

What is this chart's data?
What is this chart's data?

--User:Wassermann

The chart's drawn for June 10, 2006 at 1:00 PM in Cumberland, Maryland, USA. I'll add it to the image's page. — Sam 22:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrological factors

I have brought up a discussion on the WikiProject talk page. Comments are welcome. — Sam 19:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whole House System

Whole House System is a original indian invention. I paid time to study both Manilius and Ptolemy, and neither of them used the form affixed exlusively to the ascendant. Instead they started "whole houses" on the fly, from the point being the significator of the matter of their interest, be it ascendant, mc, sun, moon, planet, greek part or fixed star. If you've found source that did otherwise, please share it ;). GrzegorzWu 08:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but whole sign houses are not an original Indian invention. Whole sign houses are used in all of the Hellenistic texts. Manetho, Vettius Valens, Firmicus Maternus, Paulus Alexandrinus, Hephaistio of Thebes, and yes, even Ptolemy and Manilius, even though those two authors don't mention the houses very often. It is very clear in the rest of the Hellenistic tradition that this was the original form of house division though. I work at Project Hindsight [3] where we are in the process of translating all of the extant Hellenistic texts, and I can tell you that this isn't really a matter that is open for contention at this point.
The only reason that the Indians use whole sign houses in the first place is because they inherited the system from the Greeks. This is why most of the technical terminology of Indian astrology is simply transliterated Greek terms that have been rendered into Sanskrit. Especially the words for the houses. --Chris Brennan 00:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Citations please. So far i've read only Ptolemy, Manilius and Dorotheus, scholarly translated and annotated. All of them use consistently the dynamical form - they mark the "first whole sign" the one in which the point of their interest land, it may be any of the points: asc sun moon planet part etc. The form affixed to the ascendent only (obviously degenerated from this origin) is absent in these texts. The only documented place where they were and still are used is India. GrzegorzWu 07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Here are some sources. Case in point though- if you are not at least familiar with the texts below then you don't really have any right to make statements about the early tradition of astrology or where certain techniques such as whole sign houses originated.
  • Vettius Valens, Anthologiarum libri novem, ed. David Pingree (Leipzig, 1986).
  • Vettius Valens, The Anthology – Book I, trans. Robert Schmidt, Project Hindsight, Cumberland, MD, 1993.
  • Vettius Valens, The Anthology – Book II, Part 1, trans. Schmidt, Project Hindsight, Cumberland, MD, 1994.
  • Vettius Valens, The Anthology – Book III, trans. Schmidt, Project Hindsight, Cumberland, MD, 1994.
  • Vettius Valens, The Anthology – Book IV, trans. Schmidt, Project Hindsight, Cumberland, MD, 1996.
  • Vettius Valens, The Anthology – Books V & VI, trans. Schmidt, Project Hindsight, Cumberland, MD, 1997.
  • Vettius Valens, The Anthology, Book VIII, The Golden Hind Press, trans. Robert Schmidt, 2001.
  • Paulus Alexandrinus, Introductory Matters, trans. Schmidt, Project Hindsight, Cumberland, MD, Third Edition, Revised Feb. 1995.
  • Firmicus Maternus, Mathesis, ed. by W. Kroll & F. Skutsch, Leipzig (Teubner), 2 vols, 1897-1913. Translated by J. Bram, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1975.
  • Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Book 1, trans. Robert Schmidt, ed. Rob Hand, Project Hindsight, 1994.
  • Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Book 3, trans. Robert Schmidt, Project Hindsight, 1996.
  • Claudius Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Book 4, trans. Robert Schmidt, Project Hindsight, 1998.
  • Dorotheus of Sidon, Carmen Astrologicum, trans. David Pingree, 2005 republication by Astrology Classics with translation of Pingree’s Latin preface by Dorian Gieseler Greenbaum.
  • Antiochus of Athens, The Thesaurus, trans. Robert Schmidt, ed. Robert Hand, Project Hindsight Greek Track Volume II-B, Golden Hind Press, Cumberland, MD, 1993.
  • Hephaistio of Thebes, Apotelesmatics, Book 1, trans. Robert Schmidt, ed. Rob Hand, Project Hindsight, 1994.
  • Hephaistio of Thebes, Apotelesmatics, Book 2, trans. Schmidt, Project Hindsight, Cumberland, MD, 1998.
  • Anonymous of 379, The Treatise on the Bright Fixed Stars, trans. Robert Schmidt, ed. Robert Hand, Project Hindsight, 1993.
  • Masha’allah, On Reception, trans. Rob Hand, A.R.H.A.T. Publications, Second Printing 1999. (Still uses whole sign houses in the 9th century because he was drawing largely on Hellenistic sources who were also using whole sign houses.)
  • Etc.
--Chris Brennan 19:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW:

Marcus Manilius, translated by G.P.Gould - "Astronomica", Harvard University Press, London, England 1977;

Claudius Ptolemaeus, translated by F.E.Robbins - "Tetrabiblos", Harvard University Press, London, England 1940;

Good discussion on this point by Deborah Houlding is at http://www.skyscript.co.uk/houprob5.html, and although citations from Manilius are absent there, the Ptolemy is well researched.

GrzegorzWu 09:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What is your point though? You are citing two of the most suspect Hellenistic sources available. A poet and an encyclopediaist. It isn't even clear that either of these two were actually practicing astrologers, and neither of them address the issue of houses very much anyways. Compare this with Vettius Valens, a slightly younger contemporary of Ptolemy, who preserves nearly 200 example charts from his private practice- and all of the example charts use whole sign houses! This completely defeats your argument man. I'm not trying to be a jerk about this or something, but I'm just surprised that you are making this argument in the first place when you haven't read all of the sources yet. Are you an Indian astrologer, and is that why you are arguing that whole sign houses were invented by Indian astrologers and are not present in the Hellenistic tradition?
By the way, Deborah Houlding would not dispute that whole sign houses were used in Hellenistic astrology. I don't know anyone who would at this point. --Chris Brennan 21:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Out of print. Even at Project Hindsiht own site :(. I have no way to reach them. Who is Deborah Houlding? GrzegorzWu 08:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Hindsight translations are currently out of print isn't really my problem, but it seems like you are going to have to wait until you have studied more works on Hellenistic astrology before you begin pushing any of these arguments about whole sign houses again. Or you could try reading the Hellenistic texts in their original language in the CCAC: Catalogus Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, ed. D. Olivieri, et al., 12 Volumes, Brussels: Academie Royale, 1898-1953. You just mentioned Deborah Houlding and pointed to an article by her in your previous comment just before my last one. I was pointing out that one of the sources that you cite wouldn't even agree with this argument that you are trying to push. No one would. --Chris Brennan 16:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Strange, Deb actually claims otherwise: "There’s no evidence that Ptolemy used a whole sign system and I am pretty sure that even Rob Hand would admit to that."

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2519&sid=6762185f4928f477bdb6ee4664db5bfa 83.24.187.105 19:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

The best thing to do is to take the issue to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets where if you repost what you put on my talkpage, an administrator with blocking privileges will go through and stop the madness. Thanks for the vote of confidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)